TEAM KENNEDY v. BELLOWS

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT granting 19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
TEAM KENNEDY,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
SHENNA BELLOWS, in her
)
Official Capacity as the Maine )
Secretary of State,
)
Defendant.
)

No. 1:24-cv-00052-JAW

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
On February 21, 2024, Team Kennedy filed a complaint in this Court against
Shenna Bellows, the state of Maine Secretary of State (Secretary), alleging that the
Secretary violated various statutory and constitutional provisions in her
interpretation and enforcement of Maine’s election laws applicable to the 2024
presidential primary and demanding that the Court enjoin the Secretary’s allegedly
illegal practices. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On February 27, 2024, Team Kennedy filed an
amended complaint, Am. Compl. (ECF No. 8), and a motion for emergency
preliminary injunction. Mot. for Em. Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 9). On February 29, 2024,
the Secretary opposed Team Kennedy’s motion for preliminary injunction. Secretary
of State’s Opp’n to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 16). On March 4, 2024, this Court
issued a thirty-six-page opinion, analyzing and rejecting Team Kennedy’s motion for
emergency injunction. Order on Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 1-36 (ECF No. 18).
On March 18, 2024, the Secretary moved to dismiss Team Kennedy’s lawsuit.
Secretary of State’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 19). Team Kennedy’s opposition was

due by April 8, 2024. But Team Kennedy has failed to file any opposition to the
Secretary’s motion to dismiss or to move to extend time to file its opposition. Under
District of Maine Local Rule 7(b), if a party wishes to oppose a motion, it must do so
within twenty-one days of the date the motion was filed. D. ME. LOC. R. 7(b). Under
Rule 7(b), the failure to file a timely opposition to a motion constitutes a waiver of
objection. Id.
Even though Rule 7(b) allows a court to treat a party’s failure to oppose a
motion to dismiss as a waiver of objection, when the record before the court permits
the assessment of the merits of the motion, the failure to oppose should not be
determinative. See Pomerleau v. W. Springfield Pub. Sch., 362 F.3d 143, 145 (1st Cir.
2004) (“[A] court may not automatically treat a failure to respond to a 12(b)(6) motion
as a procedural default”); Vega-Encarnacion v. Babilonia, 334 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir.
2003) (“If the merits are at issue, the mere fact that a motion to dismiss is unopposed
does not relieve the district court of the obligation to examine the complaint itself to
see whether it is formally sufficient to state a claim”).
In accordance with Local Rule 7(b) and First Circuit authority, the Court
reviewed the grounds for the Secretary’s motion to dismiss and the gravamen of the
amended complaint to determine whether it should dismiss the amended complaint.
As the Secretary’s motion to dismiss is grounded on this Court’s conclusions in its
March 4, 2024 order denying Team Kennedy’s motion for emergency preliminary
injunction and is otherwise facially meritorious, the Court concludes that it is

2

appropriate to dismiss the Team Kennedy lawsuit for failure to respond to the
Secretary’s motion to dismiss.
The Court GRANTS the Secretary of State’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19)
and DISMISSES without prejudice Team Kennedy’s Amended Complaint (ECF No.
8).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of May, 2024

3